1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of the area of 2,461 square meters in the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff B is the owner of the area of 500 square meters in G, and the Plaintiff C is the owner of the area of 8,334 square meters in H orchard, and the Defendant is the owner of the area of 1,776 square meters in the Republic of Korea before E (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Of the instant land, there is a package road (hereinafter “instant road”) in the part (b) of 32,41, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 20, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 32, and 225 square meters of the attached drawings among the instant land. The said road runs from the “I” in the vicinity, and is connected to K in the area of Chungcheongnam-gun of the budget by passing through the instant land and each of the above lands owned by the Plaintiffs.

[The section A-B of Appendix 2 is the road that passes through the plaintiff and defendant's land to K.

(C) the access road of this case is “the access road of this case”

The access road of this case is connected to the front packing road of K when it comes to K, and the above packing road is connected to "L" after passing several parcels of land (the roads from the front packing road to L (attached Form 2 drawings B-C).

(D) Doese roads of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant round roads”).

The access road of this case and the right-hand road of this case are all on a asphalt packing, the width of which is about 3 meters, and the right-hand road of this case is offered to the general public for use by neighboring villages, restaurants, child-care centers, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 4, each field inspection result of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the right to passage over the road of this case is recognized, since the right to passage over the road of this case is not possible when the owners raise an objection against the use of the road, each of the lands owned by the plaintiffs constitutes the land that has no way to contribute to the road. Thus, the right to passage over the surrounding land should be recognized against the road of this case, and the defendant should do so as above.